Marx's Program of State Dictatorship
by Mikhail Bakunin
We have already expressed several times our profound aversion to the theory
of Lassale and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as their ultimate
ideal, then at least as their immediate and principal objective, the creation
of a people's state. As they explain it, this will be nothing
other than "the proletariat raised to the level of a ruling class."
If the proletariat is to be the ruling class, it may be asked, then whom
will it rule? There must be yet another proletariat which will be
subject to this new rule, this new state. It might be the peasant
rabble, for example, which, as we know, does not enjoy the favor of the
Marxists, and which, finding itself on a lower cultural level, will probably
be governed by the urban and factory proletariat. Or, if we look at
this question from the national point of view, then, presumably, as far
as the Germans are concerned it is the Slavs who, for the same reason, will
occupy in regard to the victorious German proletariat the same position
of servile subordination that the latter now occupies in relation to its
own bourgeoisie.
If there is a state, then necessarily there is domination and consequently
slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable
- that is why we are enemies of the state.
What does it mean, "the proletariat raised to a governing class?" Will
the entire proletariat head the government? The Germans number about
40 million. Will all 40 million be members of the government? The
entire nation will rule, but no one will be ruled. Then there will
be no government, there will be no state; but if there is a state, there
will also be those who are ruled, there will be slaves.
In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved in a simple fashion. By
popular government they mean government of the people by a small number
of representatives elected by the people. So-called popular representatives
and rulers of the state elected by the entire nation on the basis of universal
suffrage - the last word of the Marxists, as well as of the democratic school
- is a lie behind which the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed,
a lie all the more dangerous in that it represents itself as the expression
of a sham popular will.
So, from whatever point of view we look at this question, it always comes
down to the same dismal result: government of the vast majority of the people
by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will
consist of workers. Yes, perhaps of former workers, who, as
soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to
be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the
heights of hte state. They will no longer represent the people but
themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people. ...
But those elected will be passionately committed as well as learned socialists.
The words "learned socialist" and "scientific socialism," which recur
constantly in the writings and speeches of the Lassalleans and Marxists,
are proof in themselves that the pseudo-popular state will be nothing but
the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy
of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they
will be liberated in entirety from the cares of government and included in
entirety in the governed herd. A true liberation!
The Marxists sense this contradiction, and, recognizing that a government
of scholars, the most oppressive, offensive, and contemtuous kind in the
world, will be a real dictatorship for all its democratic forms, offer the
consoling thought that this dictatorship will be temporary and brief. They
say that its sole concern and objective will be to educate the people and
raise them both economically and politically to such a level that government
of any kind will soon become unnecessary and the state, having lost its political,
that is, ruling, character, will transform itself into a totally free organization
of economics interests and communities.
There is a flagrant contradiction here. If their state is to be truly
a people's state, then why abolish it? But if its abolition is essential
for the real liberation of the people, then how do they dare call it a people's
state? Our polemics against them have forced them to recognize that
freedom, or anarchy - that is, the voluntary organization of the workers
from below upward - is the ultimate goal of social development, and that
any state, including their people's state, is a yoke which gives rise to
despotism on the one hand and slavery on the other.
They say this state yoke, this dictatorship, is a necessary transitional
device for achieving the total liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom,
is the goal, and the state, or dictatorship, the means. Thus, for
the masses to be liberated they must first be enslaved.
For the moment we have concentrated our polemic on this contradiction.
They claim that only a dictatorship (theirs, of course) can create
popular freedom. We reply that no dictatorship can have any objective
than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery
in the people who endure it. Liberty can be created only by liberty,
by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organization of the
workers from below upward. ...
The political and social theory of the anti-state socialists, or anarchists,
leads them directly and inexorably to a complete break with all governments
and all forms of bourgeois politics, leaving no alternative but social revolution.
Meanwhile, the opposing theory, the theory of the state communists
and scientific authority, inexorably enmeshes and entangles its adherents,
under the pretext of political tactics, in endless accommodations with governments
and the various bourgeois political parties - that is, it thrusts them directly
into reaction.
The best proof of this is Lassalle. Who is unaware of his relations
and negotiations with Bismark? The liberals and democrats, against
whom he waged relentless and very successful war, took advantage of it to
accuse him of venality. Marx's personal adherents in Germany whispered
the same thing among themselves, though not so openly. But they all
lied. Lassalle was rich and had no reason to sell himself. He
was too intelligent and too proud not to prefer the role of independent agitator
to the unseemly position of an agent of the government, or of anyone else.
... He was sincerly devoted to the people's cause, the way an honest doctor
is devoted to curing his patient, whom, nevertheless, he sees not so much
a man as a case. We are profoundly convinced that he was so honorable
and proud that nothing in the world would have made him betray the people's
cause.
There is no need to resort to base suppositions in order to explain Lassale's
relations and transactions with the Prussian minister. Lassalle, as
we said, was openly at war with liberals and democrats of all shades and
very much scorned these naive rhetoricians, whose helplessness and bankruptcy
he percieved clearly. Bismarck, though for different reasons, was also
hostile to them, and that served as the initial ground for their rapprochement.
The principal basis for it, however, was Lassalle's political and
social program, the communist theory created by Marx.
The fundamental point of this program is the liberation (imaginary) of
the proletariat solely by means of the state. But that requires
that the state agree to liberate the proletariat from the yoke of bourgeois
capital. How is the state to be imbued with such a desire? There
are only two possible methods. The proletariat must carry out a revolution
to seize the state - that is the heroic method. In our opinion ...
it must immediately destroy it [the state] as the eternal prison of the masses.
According to Marx's theory, however, the people not only must not
destroy it, they must fortify it and strengthen it, and in this form place
it at the complete disposal of their benefactors, guardians, and teachers
- the leaders of the communist party, in a word, Marx and his friends, who
will begin to liberate them in their own way. They will concentrate
the reins of government in a strong hand, because the ignorant people require
strong supervision. They will create a single state bank, concentrating
in their own hands all commercial, industrial, agricultural, and even scientific
production, and will divide the people into two armies, one industrial and
one agrarian, under the direct command of state engineers, who will form
a new privileged scientific and political class.
You see what a splendid goal the school of German communists sets for the
people! But to attain all these benefits one innocent little step
must first be taken - a revolution! Well, just wait for the Germans
to make a revolution! They will discuss it endlessly, but as for actually
doing it . . .
The Germans themselves do not believe in a German revolution. Some
other nation must initiate it, or some external force must draw or push
them into it. By themselves, they will never go beyond philosophizing. Consequently
another method of seizing the state must be sought. The sympathies
of the people who head the state, or who might head it, must be won over.
...
Excerpted from Statism and Anarchy, pages 177 - 182